Ainoa paikka, josta Prabhupadan opetuksissa löytyy mitään lähellekään siihen viittaavaa, etteivät naiset voisi toimia guruina, löytyy Srimad-Bhagavatamin 4.12.32 purportista. Siellä sanotaan, että Dhruva Maharajan äiti Suniti ei voinut toimia Dhruvan diksa-guruna, koska hän oli nainen.
Ote merkityksestä: ”Suniti, however, being a woman, and specifically his mother, could not become Dhruva Maharaja’s diksa-guru”
Tämä on anti-VDG-partyn kultainen avain, jonka perusteella he haluavat todistaa, että naiset eivät voi olla guruja. Tämä lause Suniti-purportissa ei kuitenkaan ole minkään tason ohje, vaan pelkästään kuvaus yhden henkilön tilanteesta Satya-yugalla.
Satya-yugalla miljoonia vuosia sitten seurattiin vaidika-vidhin sääntöjä ja määräyksiä, joiden mukaan naiset tai ei-brahmiinit eivät voi saada henkistä kastetta. Suniti oli nainen sekä ksatriya, eikä hän täten ollut itse kastettu eikä siten mitenkään voinut myöskään antaa kastetta Dhruvalle.
Mielenkiintoista tästä tekee sen, että anti-VDG-porukka ei kuitenkaan hyväksy lukuisia Prabhupadan muualla antamia ohjeita, joissa eksplisiittisesti sanotaan, että naiset voivat ja heidän pitää tulla guruiksi, tai että kaikkien oppilaiden pitää tulla guruiksi. He eivät suostu hyväksymään näitä selkeitä ohjeita, mutta vaativat hyväksymään Prabhupadan kuvauksen Sunitin tilanteesta miljoonia vuosia sitten absoluuttisena todisteena siitä että naiset eivät missään nimessä voi toimia guruina.
Srila Prabhupada specifically states that Suniti, as a woman in the particular social context of Satya-yuga, could not act as a guru. He did not say that, therefore, no woman can ever act as a guru. It was simply a description of one specific person in a particular time and circumstance.
In Satya-yuga (millions of years ago), people followed strict social rules very carefully. Srila Prabhupada states:
“According to Vedic principles, only a brāhmaṇa who is fully engaged in his occupational duties can be initiated. Śūdras and women are not admitted to a vaidika initiation.” (Caitanya-Caritamrita, Madhya-lila 24.331)
Suniti was not a brahmana; she was a ksatriya queen. From this, one may conclude that she was not initiated in the vaidika sense. If she herself was not initiated, how could she give initiation to others?
If we take Srila Prabhupada’s statements out of context or fail to consider time, place, and circumstances properly, we may arrive at conclusions that were not originally intended.
It is imperative that we discriminate between descriptions and instructions. I give couple of examples:
Example 1: Srila Prabhupada decribes that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu rejected religion based on varnasrama-dharma. If we threat this statement as an instruction, we should reject all varnasrama projects.
Example 2: Prabhupada describes that the Vedas mainly deal with karma-kanda. If we threat this description as an instruction, we should all now start to follow karma-kanda.
Similar examples could be given almost unlimitedly.
Example 3: If Srila Prabhupada gives description that people lived 100 000 years during Satya-yuga, does that mean that people should live 100 000 years during Kali-yuga?
Example 4: When Srila Prabhupada describes sages meditating at the bottom of a river for 10,000 years, should we take that as an instruction that we should now do the same?
NO! Because these are just descriptions – not instructions.
We know that Suniti lived during Satya-yuga, so when Srila Prabhupada speaks about Suniti, he is referring to a specific person living in that particular age.
If he had intended it as an instruction, he would have said something along the lines of, “and this applies to all women at all times.” Srila Prabhupada not say anything like that – not even close.
Srila Prabhupada states that he wanted all his female disciples to become initiating spiritual masters. Such statements are instructions, not just descriptions.
Ironically anti-VDG impose that the words of Srila Prabhupada should not be taken seriously when he gives explicit instructions – for example, when he clearly states what he wants his disciples to do – yet you treat descriptive statements, such as the Suniti purport (where he does not say ”I want,” ”I hope that all of you,” ”ask your wife,” or give any direct order), as absolute siddhanta?
These kind of statements are logically inconsistent. If explicit instructions are taken as less authoritative than contextual descriptions, that appears to be a selective approach to interpreting his teachings.
This is what explicit instruction looks like:
”I want that all of my spiritual sons and daughters will inherit this title of Bhaktivedanta, so that the family transcendental diploma will continue through the generations. Those possessing the title of Bhaktivedanta will be allowed to initiate disciples. Maybe by 1975, all of my disciples will be allowed to initiate and increase the numbers of the generations.” (Letter to: Hamsadutta, January 3, 1969, Los Angeles)
Prabhupada instructed his disciple:
“Ask your wife to chant this mantra and you hear it…” and further stated, “Saradia, or any twice-initiated devotee, may perform the ceremony.” This directly authorizes a female Vaisnava to transmit the sacred Diksha mantras.
”So I hope that all of you, men, women, boys and girls, become spiritual master, and follow this principle. Spiritual master, simply, sincerely, follow the principles and speak to the general public. Then Kṛṣṇa immediately becomes your favorite. Kṛṣṇa does not become your favorite; you become Kṛṣṇa’s favorite.” (Śrī Vyāsa-pūjā Lecture London, August 22, 1973)
These are instructions. Not simply descriptions.